this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
292 points (81.1% liked)

Asklemmy

44151 readers
1594 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 157 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Remember that in online spaces (and IRL in reality), there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts that will make claims to sway public opinions.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 2 months ago (21 children)

Good point. Although, I would question whether Lemmy is such a place as we really don’t have the numbers to warrant the effort, imo.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 52 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We get drug spam and stock spam, no reason to expect that political spam is any less likely.

Lemmy has a huge amount of hardcore lefty's. If you can get them to not vote, and especially if you can get them to tell their friends not to vote, that is a big win.

Astroturfing/sockpuppeting is dirty cheap to do, so no reason not to try.

You do see some users here that will post continously on about a certain topic repeatedly, with no other opinions. They might be legit, but I have my suspicions.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago

"Hardcore lefties" have a very different understanding of the value of their vote, which is to say, it means very little.

Have you deigned to ask them questions?

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (51 children)

Yeah like all of these people out here telling me to vote for genociders. There's no way that real humans would think so little of Palestinian lives, right?

Right?

load more comments (51 replies)
[–] coolusername@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

yeah, mostly CIA and Israeli bots/paid posters. all of reddit is astroturfed. All social media is controlled by the feds as well. Look into the twitter leaks to see how they do it. Mintpressnews also has great articles about feds in censorship positions in all these social media companies ranging from Facebook to TikTok (100% CIA controlled btw).

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 94 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Majority of the people who are saying this are Arab-Americans. They know how bad Trump will be, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Biden back in 2020. Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they've become numb and just stopped caring. There have been repeated instsnces of Democrats actually silencing them from speaking up as well. They've adopted a scorched earth mentality and are deciding to send a giant "fuck you" to Harris and the entire Democratic party.

And the Democrats are also allowing Israel to do whatever they want. There's not much of a difference between the two on this topic.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 57 points 2 months ago (9 children)

There is a difference between them on this topic.

If Trump were in office now, every liberal here would be screaming for the genocide to end and trying to understand how anyone could let this happen.

With Biden in office and his VP as candidate, they are trying to sell you on their candidate rather than working against the genocide.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 36 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've actually seen some Muslim American leader (not sure who, maybe the mayor of Dearborn?) saying something like this. At least with Republicans in charge democrats would need to oppose them instead of gleefully supporting the genocide. Not sure how much this logic checks out, but it's a thing I guess.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 months ago (11 children)

The logic definitely checks out. It was far easier to mobilize and educate mainstream liberals under Trump. They have gone to sleep under Biden and become fully accepting of what the administration does. They might say they don't approve in a poll or something, but get them to leave the house? Only the college students can be mobilized at this time.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Drusas@fedia.io 56 points 2 months ago (43 children)

They believe that taking a moral stand against the Democrats, who are supporting Israeli genocide, is worth it even if that means that Trump, who even more fervently supports Israeli genocide, becomes president.

[–] HorseRabbit@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Describe "even more"? In what specific material ways would trump increase support for Israel?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Lol, living in a world where "anti-genocide" is actually a thing people say is messed up.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MoonMelon@lemmy.ml 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

It's the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, "Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people".

But if you take a step back it's reasonable to ask, "WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don't spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus' forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose."

So given that realization it's also reasonable when told you must choose to say, "Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt."

That's the essential argument. There's the realpolitik decision to do "less harm", but you can also reject the fucked up premise.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The U.S. also has a huge defense industry that has made people ridiculously rich at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Those billionaires are heavily invested in the defense industry, so it's not in their interests that wars end at all.

This is that "military-industrial complex" that former President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. His concern was that the U.S. would become bogged down in an endless series of "forever wars" that do nothing but transfer wealth to the already-wealthy.

Keeping that military industrial complex well-fed is the reason why so many politicians have such a boner for war. Not only to keep their wealthy sponsors happy, but to keep tax money and jobs flowing to their states, which just happen to manufacture war materiel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 37 points 2 months ago

I’m going to tell you a secret.

The people who say this, the leftists that threaten to withhold their votes, tend to vote strategically anyways. But threatening to withhold votes is one way to apply pressure to politicians to do things like, say, stop promoting a fucking genocide. And then liberals lose their minds for some reason and make it totally irrelevant. And then we have a genocide that lasts for 75 years and starts world war 3.

[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 month ago (21 children)

She's campaigning on building the wall. she's endorsed by dick cheney and 200+ reagan and Bush admin staffers. we have sent more aid to Israel in the past year than we ever have since Israel was invented. she has stated that her support of Israel is iron-clad. the current admin has broken records for the amount of oil and gas extracted extracted in the past 4 years. she has refused to voice support for the trans people who are supposedly going to be protected by her admin. she has kicked Palestinian people out of her campaign events, while instead parading around Richie Torres, a person who famously has stated multiple times that Palestinians deserve their eradication. her policy page has removed all mentions of medicare for all and paths to citizenship. she has promised to make america's military the most lethal fighting force in the world.

she has decided that the "moderate conservative" who will never vote for her is more important than all the progressives and leftists who probably would've. just like Hillary Clinton and Dale Earnhardt, she's going to crash into a wall because she can't turn left.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 33 points 2 months ago (19 children)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Single issue voters just seem to be the excuse of Democrat party for if they lose.

Just like election fraud is of the Republican party.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TonoManza@lemmygrad.ml 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (23 children)

Because why would a pro-Palestine person vote for the person who has aided the genocide against them and continues to vow further support for the regime responsible?

The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

How is Kamala less likely to escalate it further when she has supported the actual ongoing genocide? What will Trump escalate it to? Double genocide? Either way I'm not voting for Trump so I don't have to agree with his policies. I'm just not going to let the Dems conduct Genocide and scare me into agreeance with them using the threat of Trump.

If you're talking about escalation with Iran, we have already been working with Israel for a "response" to Iran response and she has again supported Israels right to continue their provocations in the name of "defense".

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

Crazy stuff like genocide? Expanding the "war" in Gaza into Lebanon? Provoking Iran with a strike on their soil then planning "retaliation" for their retaliation?

As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Kamala is actively engaged in a genocide. There should be punishments for this. The least of which should be losing your role in any sort of elected office. A vote for Kamala is literally a vote saying that you are okay with genocide as long as it benefits you to do so.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (18 children)

doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

And what if they seem equally likely to escalate the situation?

Trump says he'll let Israel finish the job. Kamala says she disapproves of what's happening in Gaza, but will always support Israel and will always provide them with weapons.

Same fuckin' thing.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Cherries@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (23 children)

4 years ago, Democrats said the border wall was stupid and bad. They said that Republicans were racist for claiming all Mexicans were drug dealers and criminals. Today, Harris is saying she's gonna build the border wall, be tough on migrants, and has basically adopted Trump's policies on immigration.

There is no indication that the Democrats will not be just as bad as the Republicans on Israel in 4 years.

To address your second point "not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump"; why isn't the opposite true? "Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris", follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?

This election should be a slam dunk victory for Harris. The data shows that adopting leftist progressive policies is popular. Biden dropping out resulted in $4 million in small donor fundraising. Picking Walz resulted in another $2 million. People got really excited when it looked like the Democratic party was making leftist progressive movement.

Since then, the Dems have been aggressively moving towards the center. More lethal military, inciting panic about the border, ignoring Palestine. This has resulted in an extremely tight race as people are no longer excited to vote for Harris.

I want Harris to win. Moving leftward politically will attract more voters. Taking a firm stance on stopping the Israeli government's genocide is a leftist progressive policy. The bag is right there, she just needs to grab it.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I voted for Harris, but I feel like it's pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.

One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I'm not saying "is" here. I'm saying "should be".

We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there's value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.

And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu's whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.

For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It's not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!

Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that's not something we can do everywhere. We can't repeatedly choose the "least miserable option" and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It's just not possible.

Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, "on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is."

Some people's hill is their ballot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 26 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The vote should be for someone who can get enough electoral college votes to win in the first place, and from there the one who is more likely to listen to public pressure, as well as the same for any congressional seats on the ballot. And probably not vote for the one who is threatening to send the military after those who disagree with them.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Which as a non-American seems to be Harris, right?

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yes, Harris is the only realistic option. Anyone voting for Trump is a Nazi in the most literal sense of the word.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 18 points 2 months ago

For a vote, yes. I can't even imagine what Trump would do with the situation given another chance. Some may say the same thing as the US has always done, which is one of the problems that will need to be addressed regardless of who wins, but Trump also likes dictators, so support would probably be bumped up even more for Netanyahu.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

Three points:

  • Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn't stop reminding us of in everything but, "strangely", not this subject) and isn't even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump's word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
  • If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a "otherwise it's Trump" strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn't much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it's very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
  • Some people simply put their moral principles above "yeah but" excuses and won't vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.

In summary:

  • Trump's Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris' is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
  • A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they're supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the "wrong" ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that's the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it's the least bad choice.
  • Some people can't just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn't even a "choose a good thing" but actually a "choose a lesser evil", and "Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies" is pretty strong as moral principles go.
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It's easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that's harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris' Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.

I'm still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.

The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.

https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/

Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel's genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.

Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don't see that from the Democratic administration.

Despite Trump's horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It's not logical, but it's hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the 'lesser evil' doesn't work when the 'lesser evil' is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He's using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.

Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.

Quote

Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.

Quotes

In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.

Quotes

Quotes

Quotes

Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.

Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 months ago

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election

If you don't live in one of the 7 states that matter in an election then you can vote your morality, safe in the knowledge that the EC will ignore your input, anyway

Inb4 some dipshit mentions down ballots when we're talking about the fucking presidential election

[–] macabrett@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Never again means never again, I will not be party to it.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isnt the first time the whole lesser of two evil bs has been done in an American election. It happens everytime. Biden said hey i may suck but atleast i wont put immigrant kids in cages! Then he kept the kids in cages and now democrats run on mass deportation policies 4 years later. Trump might say worse things but the actual effects of him being in office wont really be different then if Harris wins. If anything Harris winning will show them that being pro-genocide worked and theyll be pro even more genocide going forward.

Its just not an accurate assessment to say "Well Harris is slightly better so shouldnt the choice for her be obvious?" Because she isnt better. She just puts a better face on the exact same genocidal policies. The only difference is that Trump doesnt pretend like he feels bad about it when gazan children are slaughtered and openly admits he is a maniac. Biden publically tells Israel dont do this thing then they do it anyway and the media plays it off like Biden is just incompetent and cant stop it. But the reality is its all fake. Hes saying not to do it publically then privately green lighting whatever they want to do. They arent going against him at all hes just putting on an act for people like you. Its what the entire "International Law" that applies to the enemies of the US Empire but never applies to the US or its allies has always been. An act put on by liberals to pretend they arent evil so people who have empathy will still buy in to the system.

There is no such thing as Democracy in the US. As someone more clever than me once said:

"America only has 1 political party but in classic American opulence they have 2 of them."

The only reason America has election is to give the illusion of consent to the governance of their population. The whole "We the People" thing is nonsense and not real. Its a Myth just like the American Dream is a Myth. Work hard and youll make it! Its all bullshit and it always has been. Vote, dont vote, it doesnt matter. The Empire will still demand blood.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This isnt the first time the whole lesser of two evil bs has been done in an American election. It happens everytime.

Every election that I can remember, and I can remember as far back as Carter vs Reagan.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

and the amazing part is both the parties do it lol. Kamala is an evil communist whose gonna take your guns and kill babies if your a Republican. And Trump is a dictator lover who is gonna overthrow democracy if your a democrat. Its funny how 2 people who are ideologically alligned in almost every way possible are framed as being the opposite end of the political spectrum in US politics.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 19 points 2 months ago (17 children)

Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who's been actively supporting a genocide?

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Talisker@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (26 children)

Your vote is your consent.

Imagine for a minute that your perfect political candidate was running. The only catch is that if they win they are promising to personally execute your family in front of you. The other guy is gonna kill your family too so everyone tells you to stop being such a single issue voter and vote for the lesser evil.

Do you still vote for them? Or do you refuse to participate in the execution of your family?

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Both candidates will support Israel, so for pro palestine voters it's a "Would you like to vote for the Shitty Party, or Less Shitty Party" situation, where not voting from these parties is shunned upon because it will help Shitty Party win.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›